Staff Reports
In a bout of legal wrangling that sounds more like an episode of reality TV than a courtroom drama, special counsel Jack Smith took the stand (figuratively, of course) this week in an attempt to justify his very existence before an appeals court. The atmosphere got particularly electric when a judge characterized special counsels like Smith as having “very few, if any” reputable counterparts. Amid rising tensions and judicial skepticism, the judge summarily dismantled Smith’s classified documents case against former President Trump, setting the stage for a side-splitting legal showdown.
Appointed by none other than the left-leaning Attorney General Merrick Garland, Smith’s approach has been about as popular as a root canal among conservatives. Meanwhile, Judge Cannon, a Trump appointee herself, boldly transformed Smith’s heavy accusations into a cautionary tale about the overreach of special counsel authority. The left couldn’t handle it, firing off torpedoes of criticism, claiming Cannon was tossing aside decades of legal precedent like a used napkin. Apparently, logic and nuance appear to be sorely lacking on that side of the aisle.
It turns out two high-profile defendants—Hunter Biden and Alexander Smirnov—also attempted to hitch a ride on Cannon’s legal rollercoaster, hoping to sidestep their charges utilizing her ruling as a crutch. But much to everyone’s chagrin, they fell flat on their faces. In yet another display of judicial boot camp, the judge swiftly tossed out Biden’s arguments, leaving the first son to ponder how not to argue in a court of law.
The tussles between Smith and Trump involved a complex narrative entangled in both the Constitution and various federal laws that only a lawyer could love. The disparity was stark: David Weiss, hailed by Smith as a legitimate special counsel, is also a current U.S. Attorney, which he apparently believes gives him some sort of cachet. Meanwhile, Smith’s credentials seem to be more akin to a wish list rather than a merit badge from the Justice Department.
The long and short of the appointee debate centers around the nature of special counsels. Traditionally, these folks operate with a degree of independence that would put a teenager to shame, wielding broad powers over their chosen cases like a kid with an oversized water gun. With the backing of historical precedent that stretches back to the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and beyond, they have generally been appointed from within the ranks of existing U.S. attorneys. But then there’s Smith—a private citizen apparently plucked from obscurity, raising serious eyebrows among conservatives and legal scholars alike.
Thanks to Trump’s crack legal team, Cannon sided with the former president on the matter, deeming Smith’s appointment as sketchy at best. In a lengthy 93-page missive, she highlighted the absurdity of appointing private citizens as special counsels, indicating that doing so is more the exception than the rule. This put a major fly in the ointment for Smith’s arguments, which sought to dance around the very statutes that, until now, seemed untouchable.
Washington Examiner: The problem with Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel https://t.co/8dWlT7jHeZ
— Ian’s Newsfeed 🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@IanHNewsFeed) September 1, 2024
As the Eleventh Circuit mulls over this legal circus, there’s speculation that this case may eventually land in the Supreme Court’s lap, giving the highest court an opportunity to put the kibosh on future special counsel appointments that don’t quite harmonize with the Constitution. With numerous Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys available, the suggestion is clear: the attorney general’s office should stick with tried-and-true talent instead of rolling the dice with private citizens looking for their moment in the spotlight.
In the end, as the legal theater unfolds, the stakes escalate. If Trump continues to gain traction with arguments that challenge the very foundation of special counsel appointments, the ramifications could echo through the corridors of power for years to come. Because in a world already rife with political theater, adding fuel to the fire only makes for better headlines—and hopefully, a return to order in the legal system.
